The 18xx Series - A Case for Re-Design?

A group of us played Hans Im Gluck's 1835 recently and although I
don't consider a full review worth doing (it is close enough to the
rest of the series not to warrant the space), I would like to make
a few comments on the game and the system as a whole. Because of
the trouble I usually get into with these pieces, I will open by
clearly stating that I am dubiously playing Devil's Advocate again
and would like to discuss the subject with other players and
designers. So, no abuse please.

Despite there being a whole slew of unauthorised variants around at
present, 1835 is the latest of the four 'official Tresham' railway
building and share dealing games, the fifth if you count the 1829
Northern board. It concerns the development of railways in Germany
and, like most of the series, contains innovations to recast the
basic structure. This time we get minor companies that do not have
quoted shares but which are good revenue earners and track builders
in their own right - a development I enjoyed for reasons expressed
below, but this opinion is not shared by many I understand. That
said, in my view, this bolted-on advancement should have been
balanced by heavy pruning elsewhere. As it is, the game is now
rather top-heavy.

The other main play theme is the spectre of nationalisation in the
form of the Prussian Railway. This takes over various companies at
the game's mid-point causing much confusion and preventing much
worthwhile forward planning. I didn't particularly like this rule
as you could be building track in the early stages that might not
benefit your cause. These though are just details in what remains
an engrossing system but which, in my view, takes far too long to
play and has a good few improvable points. So, having poked holes
in the system, I will attempt to outline possible solutions or
other ways of approaching the game and simulation problems.

To tackle the first criticism, 1835 took four of us nearly four
hours to play up to the appearance of the Preussische takeover. At
that stage, albeit our first attempt with the game, we estimated
that we had played only half the game, perhaps much less. Other
games in the series take between a not unreasonable four hours for
the popular 1830 to a reputed eight or more for 1829, still
regarded as the best of the series by some 18xx players. I would
argue that these game lengths are unacceptable in the 1990's and
that modern design techniques have not been brought to bear on the
system, either by the designer or the gaming public. Many recent
games, articles and discussions have lead me to champion the
shorter game, but Alan Moon's Airlines was the major inspiration
here.

Agreed, there have been subtle tweaks (see Mr Dagger's considered
piece in an early Strategy Plus) but nothing that will
revolutionise the system into something playable in perhaps half or
(gosh), a quarter of the time. Call me a stirrer, but there seems
to be an unjustified level of contentment with the basic system and
the time required. This is true to the extent that its advocates
regularly play these long games, in some cases once a week or more,
seemingly without even thinking about the man-hour commitment - or
is it that it is still considered macho to play an eight hour game?
If the speed can be improved without loss of play value, then
surely that is a positive result.

The last couple of 18xx games I have played have been partially
devoted to seeing where the system is taking so long and what might
be done to improve it. A proper time and motion study of 1835
would, I'm sure, have shown a high percentage of downtime for all
players, especially those running just one company or none at all.
I thought, for instance, that instant improvements might be made by
cutting down on cash transactions (preferably completely), the need
for constant checking of routes and dividend levels ('How much is
the B&O paying?') and general administration of bank, company
credits and personal cash.

Interestingly, some computer game assistance programs developed in
Germany (and probably the UK for all I know) take much of this
record keeping on board and thus aid speed of play considerably. I
am sure we will see more of this as GAPs improve, though at present
they still require a helpful Mr Chump to sit and input the data
shouted out by the other players. This assumes honesty, accuracy
and a willingness to take a slightly low-key role in the game, but
the hobby is thankfully not short of such mortals.

Looking wider, I would also like to see some method of enhancing
and speeding up track builds. Judging by myself and those I play
18xx with, the building of your track network is a strong (possibly
the strongest) element in the game. It is, after all, a game about
railways and the final track configuration after a long game is
always fascinating. What I would like to see (as 1835 partially
delivers) is quicker evolution of the networks, increased build
capacity and more chance of reaching the interesting tiles and
route structures later in the game. Perhaps this could be achieved
by allowing three or four tile builds per turn, possibly depending
on size of company, wealth and so on.

Much of the problem in game speed at present is that you only get
to lay one or two tiles per turn and a simple count of hexes to
your intended destination is often enough to get your reaching for
the Elefantenparade there and then. Even more severe would be a
move to a new build system (conceivably based on card play) that
would enable you to build varying lengths of track in certain
terrain, cause track to emerge from various private lines and so
on.

Going further, and possibly into the realms of the seriously
demented, I would consider abandoning the need for 'running' trains
altogether, thus avoiding that drain on time caused by constant
working out of routes. The trains themselves would still be
purchased, retired and retain the speed attributes, but they would
be linked to a fixed route on the network which would then have a
known income. Re-assigning trains and routes would be possible, but
only infrequently. There would be scope for a Shai-Hulud style
nexus here, perhaps the Fat Controller could appear and grant three
wishes?

As a very personal gripe, I would also do away with joint running
powers unless mutually agreed by the companies involved. It has
always struck me as odd that gamers who relish the (often nasty)
interaction provoked by station markers think nothing of letting
their sworn enemies run alongside on track laid built by themselves
at great opportunity cost. Yes, this might be a necessary game
fudge, but Railway Rivals gets round it nicely. On balance then,
this rule goes in the bin along with the even more untenable and
contentious station rules.

I think the share dealing system as it stands has inherent strength
and interest but, because of the constant money transactions and
the deterministic (and often game-swinging) nature of the 'first
deal', I am sure we might achieve something a bit more exciting and
volatile. What about a chit draw system (or a flip of an action
card) that would determine who would deal when in the share round?
The certainty and disadvantage is lost and you'd have to think on
your feet. While we're at it, we could spice up the stock price
moves a bit as well. The constant plod up and across has to be one
of the least-inspiring elements of the game. Let's have some ideas
on this.

Extending this line of thought, what about introducing an Airlines
style system where you can only 'buy' the shares that are available
in the market, which represent a small fraction of the total shares
in issue? At the same time, we could ignore the cash value of
shares for purchases, but continue to monitor their progress on the
stock market. This gives an indication of their worth and the
concept of 'game end' value remains intact. The scarcity of the
shares, as in Airlines, would be sufficient to 'price' them during
the game and the chit draw would be exciting if you were waiting to
pounce on or dump a particular company.

These propositions could really make the game feel like the
cutthroat, exciting business railroading was, rather than the
inevitable, 'perfect-plan' environment 18xx is at the moment.
Again, I am conscious of some gamers preferring the predictability
and controllability that 18xx and other Tresham games offer.
Compared to the delights of 'chaos gaming', where you never know
what will happen next and things can go excitingly wrong, 18xx is
a tame animal indeed. I have grown to enjoy the latter form of
gaming recently and am sure there is plenty there to explore as far
as game systems go. Whatever, both routes offer absorbing
decisions; I feel the latter offers the greater challenge.

Another area is to guide the game towards slightly more historical
results. David Watts achieves this in Railway Rivals through a
clever design trick of making the best network emerge close to the
historical one - you will have noticed the relation between the
actual maps and finished games (involving good players),
particularly on the earlier maps. I think this is one of RR's
strongest features. Elsewhere, Alan Moon in his developmental 1869
(Western USA) features objective rules where each railroad can earn
a cash bonus for achieving a historical link-up or connecting with
a real-life distant destination. Nice ideas that add a lot of play
value and atmosphere.

Having mentioned historicity, I am a little worried by the number
of gamers who are playing 18xx in the belief that it is an accurate
simulation. I would like to think there aren't many, but some of
the comments overheard from some very experienced players has lead
me to believe that the aficionados have started to believe that
this is really the way it was. It is outside the scope of this
article to go into the areas where 18xx fails as a historical
simulation but I can't believe that the 18xx games look anything
like the history books say it was. I will assume that the bulk of
the 18xx gamers are simply playing it as the admittedly complex,
rich, flavoursome game that it is.

I guess the above suggestions are really an experimental selection
that will cause shudders and perhaps screams around the 18xx
community. My main worry is that the game is one those that you
can't tamper with as it may quickly unbalance - particularly in the
stock market area. My good friend Ernst Knauth, who has played 18xx
more than most, suggests that the whole of an 18xx game is
definitely greater than the sum of its parts, and who am I to
argue? If that is the case, fine. We walk away from it and start
from scratch, perhaps targeting a new angle and aiming for fast
play as a requirement. If not, I think there may well be something
in this.

Right, that's it. I hope there are some points there that you will
come back on, even if it is to say I am sadly mistaken and the game
is perfectly fine as it is. Please say why though - I am not an
expert on the system but then I'm far from a novice as well.
However, if any of them make you re-think or doubt any part of the
18xx series, then I will have succeeded in my aim. Perhaps the
outcome of the discussion might be a railway game that, possibly
using the Hartland pieces, plays in two hours or less while
offering just as much interest and play value. I'll sign off by
saying that I am quite partial to the 18xx games and I even play
them occasionally, but I think more needs to be done to further the
series (and thus the genre) than moving the tried and trusted
system around to new geographical locations and adding a few
twiddly bits.